‘The Focus Should Be on Holding Social Media Companies Accountable, Not Punishing Individual Users’

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Democracy, Featured, Freedom of Expression, Global, Headlines, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

Oct 7 2024 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS discusses the recent Twitter/X ban in Brazil with Iná Jost, lawyer and head of research at InternetLab, an independent Brazilian think tank focused on human rights and digital technologies.

Brazil’s Supreme Court recently upheld a ban on Elon Musk’s social media platform X, formerly Twitter, after it repeatedly refused to comply with orders to moderate content. The court ordered tech companies to remove X from app stores and imposed fines for continued access via VPNs in Brazil. This appeared to cause users to switch to alternatives such as Bluesky and Threads. Musk condemned the ban as an attack on free speech, but has since backed down and complied with the court’s orders. Debate continues over the controversy’s implications for democracy and accountability.

Iná Jost

Why did the Brazilian Supreme Court ban X?

The case began on 7 August when a Supreme Court justice, investigating ‘digital malicious activities’, ordered the blocking of seven X profiles for intimidating law enforcement officers and directly threatening the integrity of the court and democracy in Brazil.

X refused to comply with the order, claiming it violated freedom of expression. The judge then imposed a daily fine for non-compliance, which was subsequently raised and ended up amounting to over US$3 million as Musk continued to refuse to comply. At one point, the justice ordered the freezing of X’s financial assets in Brazil, but they weren’t enough to cover the fines.

After more back and forth, tensions escalated when the judge also froze the bank accounts of satellite internet company Starlink, arguing that both companies were part of the same economic group. This caused some controversy, as Starlink operates in a different sphere and its operations aren’t entirely linked to X.

The turning point came when X closed its headquarters in Brazil. Without a legal representative in the country, the court found it difficult to enforce its orders or impose additional penalties. It then gave X 24 hours to appoint a new representative, which it failed to do. As a result, on 30 August, the court ordered the closure of X.

It is important to mention that the court is not super transparent and the whole procedure was carried out under seal. We are unable to grasp the full picture because the process is closed and not all decisions are made public.

What was the legal basis for the decision to close X?

The Court based its decision on Brazil’s 2014 Civil Framework for the Internet. Under this law, platforms can be blocked for failing to comply with Brazilian laws or court orders. Some confusion arose over the notion that the ban was due to X’s lack of a legal representative in Brazil; however, the shutdown resulted from the company’s repeated refusal to comply with court orders.

Civil society raised concerns about some aspects of the decision. Initially, the order included blocking VPN services to prevent access to X, but this part was later reversed due to cybersecurity risks. Blocking VPNs that serve legitimate purposes would have been disproportionate. The order also proposed a US$9,000 fine for users trying to circumvent the ban, which many felt was excessive. We believe the focus should be on holding the company accountable, not punishing individual users.

Is it possible to strike a balance between regulating online platforms and protecting freedoms?

It is. Regulating platforms isn’t necessarily about censorship. In this case, it’s about ensuring a powerful company operates transparently and protects users. Platforms acting solely in their commercial interests can harm the public interest. Regulation can force them to provide clear terms and conditions and fair content moderation policies and respect due process for content removal.

The belief that any form of regulation threatens freedom of expression is misguided. Thoughtful regulation that allows users to express themselves while protecting them from harm such as hate speech or misinformation can balance the scales.

Musk’s stance in this case is deeply problematic. His selective compliance with court orders undermines the rule of law. While platforms like X are crucial to public communication, that doesn’t give them the right to defy the legal system they operate in. Freedom of expression does not absolve platforms of their legal responsibilities, particularly when those laws protect the integrity of democracy.

Musk’s claim that X represents absolute freedom of expression fails to consider the risks of a platform without proper rules. Without moderation, platforms can become havens for extremist groups, hate speech and disinformation. They should be regulated to ensure they remain a space for lawful discourse.

Do you think this case will set a precedent?

I don’t think so. Some people are worried other platforms could be blocked as well, but I don’t think that will happen. This is a unique scenario, and Brazil is a strong democracy. This wasn’t an act of censorship by the judiciary but a necessary measure given the platform owner’s refusal to comply with court orders.

States should develop regulatory mechanisms that allow them to hold platforms accountable and ensure compliance with national laws. This would avoid the need for outright blocking, which ultimately harms the users the most. While the company might incur some financial losses, journalists and citizens are losing access to a vital information and communication tool.

I hope states that are serious about regulating platforms will see this as an example of what shouldn’t happen. We shouldn’t allow things to escalate to this point. And we certainly shouldn’t use this as a leading case for blocking platforms.

Get in touch with InternetLab through its website or its Instagram and Facebook pages, and follow @internetlabbr on Twitte.

  Source

The UN Cybercrime Convention: A New Repressive Tool in Disguise?

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: CIVICUS

MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Oct 4 2024 (IPS) – The UN Office on Drugs and Crime hailed the recently agreed Cybercrime Convention as a ‘landmark step’ in cooperating to tackle online dangers. But human rights organisations aren’t so sure.

Ominously, the resolution that started the process, passed by the UN General Assembly in December 2019, was sponsored by authoritarian Russia and backed by some of the world’s most repressive states. Some of them already had cybercrime laws they use to stifle legitimate dissent. Many more have passed similar laws since.

When Russia’s resolution was put to a vote, the EU, USA and many other states, alongside human rights and digital rights organisations, urged states to reject it. But once the resolution passed, they had to engage with the process to try to prevent the worst possible outcome: a treaty lacking human rights safeguards that could be used as a repressive tool.

They succeeded in tempering some of the worst aspects of early drafts, but the results still leave much to be desired.

The treaty process

The December 2019 resolution established an ad hoc committee (AHC) to lead negotiations, open to the participation of all UN member states plus others as observers, including civil society.

The pandemic delayed the process, and the AHC’s first meeting, focused on procedural rules, was held in mid-2021. Brazil’s proposal to require a two-thirds majority for decisions when states couldn’t reach consensus prevailed over the simple majority rule favoured by Russia. The AHC approved a list of eligible stakeholders, including civil society organisations (CSOs), academic institutions and private sector representatives.

The first negotiating session in February 2022 took another important decision: consultations would be held between negotiations, including for CSOs, to provide input and feedback. Numerous human rights and digital rights CSOs took part, often working in coalitions. They made written submissions, attended face-to-face and online meetings and made oral interventions.

Damage control

Ahead of the first negotiating session, some 130 organisations and experts signed a letter urging the AHC to ensure the treaty included human rights protections, warning that otherwise it could become ‘a powerful weapon for oppression’. They were up against numerous states that didn’t agree human rights safeguards were needed.

By April 2022, many states initially opposed to the treaty had begun to participate actively, so civil society focused on damage control. By then it was apparent there wasn’t a clear definition of what constitutes a cybercrime and which crimes the treaty should regulate. Several states aggressively pushed for broad and ambiguous provisions they claimed were needed to combat extremism, hate speech and terrorism.

Civil society insisted the treaty shouldn’t be overly broad and should only cover core cybercrimes or cyber-dependent crimes: crimes committed against computer systems, networks and data, including hacking, computing system interference, ransomware and the spreading of malware. And even when dealing with these crimes, civil society warned, treaty provisions shouldn’t apply to security research, the work of whistleblowers and other actions that benefit the public.

Civil society insisted on the exclusion of cyber-enabled crimes: those that can be facilitated by ICTs but can also committed without them, such as arms and drug trafficking, money laundering and the distribution of counterfeit goods. This category could potentially include numerous offences that would repress the online exercise of civic freedoms.

A second major concern was the scope and conditions for international cooperation. Here too civil society urged clear definitions and a narrow scope. It argued that if not clearly defined, cooperation arrangements could mean enhanced surveillance and bulk data sharing, violating privacy and data protection provisions. It warned that in the absence of the principle of dual criminality – which means extradition can only apply to an action that constitutes a crime in both the country making the request and the one receiving it – state authorities could be made to investigate activities that aren’t crimes in their countries on other states’ behalf. They could effectively become enforcers of the repression of others.

Tech companies also shared civil society’s concerns about the potential for expansive electronic surveillance in the name of fighting crime.

Human rights sidelined

Civil society representatives see the final draft as not as bad as it could have been, but it still lacks clear, specific and enforceable human rights protections. Rather than applying them as international standards, the treaty leaves human rights safeguards up to each state’s domestic law.

Civil society advocacy led to improvements on the first drafts, including an expanded article on human rights that references civic freedoms, and the inclusion of the right to an effective remedy in the article on conditions and safeguards. The most blatant attempts to weaponise the treaty to criminalise expression failed, although some cyber-enabled crimes still made it into the text. The activities of journalists, security researchers and whistleblowers aren’t adequately protected.

The convention includes a chapter on crimes against computer systems, networks and data, plus a limited number of cyber-enabled crimes, such as child sexual abuse. But while the list of crimes is narrower than initially proposed, the scope of cooperation in collecting and sharing data became wider, raising real dangers of state overreach in the form of surveillance and invasion of privacy.

Still time

It isn’t game over. The final text will soon be put to a vote by member states at the UN General Assembly and, assuming a majority approves it, states will then need to ratify the convention. At least 40 ratifications will be needed before it enters into force, a process likely to take several years. Two years after the General Assembly vote, negotiations are expected to begin on an additional protocol covering further crimes, which won’t be concluded until 60 states have ratified the convention. Civil society fears this is when the worst proposals to criminalise speech will resurface.

Civil society will encourage governments to reject the convention and instead take a human rights-based approach. Once the UN General Assembly approves the convention, civil society will warn of the dangers it poses to human rights and civil liberties and oppose ratification.

With or without an international convention, civil society will continue to work to ensure cybercrime legislation at all levels meets the highest human rights standards, including respect for civic freedoms, and isn’t used as a means of repression.

Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Senior Research Specialist, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

A longer version of this article is available here.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org.

  Source

‘Australia Must Turn Its Climate Rhetoric into Action’

Posted on by admin

Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, Climate Change Justice, COP29, Energy, Environment, Featured, Global, Headlines, Indigenous Rights, Peace, TerraViva United Nations

Oct 1 2024 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS discusses the recent Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) meeting in Tonga with Jacynta Fa’amau, Pacific Campaigner at 350.org, a global civil society organisation campaigning for climate action.

Representatives from 18 countries gathered in Tonga for the 53rd Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting from 26 to 30 August, seeking to address issues including the climate crisis, socio-economic challenges and political conflict in New Caledonia. A key agenda item was securing funding for the Pacific Resilience Facility, a climate finance mechanism aimed at supporting communities affected by climate change. Civil society called on Australia, the world’s third largest fossil fuel exporter and a co-founder of the Forum, to demonstrate real climate leadership by phasing out fossil fuels and transitioning to renewable energy.

Jacynta Fa’amau

What was on the agenda at the recent PIF Leaders Meeting?

The PIF is an intergovernmental body that aims to improve cooperation between Pacific states and territories, Australia and New Zealand. We may be divided by national borders, but we are united by the ocean, and many of the issues that affect one island can provide valuable lessons for another. As a Samoan, I know my future is linked to that of a sister in the Solomon Islands or a brother in the atolls of Kiribati.

PIF meetings bring together regional leaders to discuss the most pressing issues facing our region. At the 53rd session, the agenda focused on several issues, including climate change, climate finance, education, health and the Pacific Policing Initiative – an Australia-backed strategy to train and support police.

But climate issues were at the top of the agenda. As Pacific Islanders, we know that phasing out fossil fuels is critical to our survival. We deserve not just resilience, but the ability to thrive in the face of this crisis. To do this, we need access to adequate climate finance and affordable renewable energy. The Pacific Resilience Facility is part of the way to achieve this, with an emphasis on ensuring accessibility for communities. Leaders had already endorsed Tonga as the host country for this financial facility, so now the key priority is to secure the resources.

What were civil society’s priorities, and what did it bring to the table?

Civil society has a vital role to play in holding leaders to their promises and creating pathways for communities to get involved. The PIF’s Civil Society Village hosted remarkable groups such as the Pacific Islands Climate Action Network and the Pacific Network on Globalisation, which are working to bridge the gap between civil society and policymakers.

As for 350.org Pacific, our role has always been to ensure that communities have the tools they need to take part in multilateral discussions that often seem far removed from realities on the ground. There’s no point in making decisions about the people you serve if you do it without their input. Before the PIF began, we held the Our Pawa Training with over 200 young people and students across Tonga. ‘Pawa’ references the people power driving the climate movement and the promise of a Pacific built on safe, ethical renewable energy. This training equipped young Tongans with tools to engage in climate conversations.

Our top priority is to ensure a safe and liveable future for the Pacific. Scientists have made it abundantly clear that our survival depends on an immediate global phase out of fossil fuels. Wealthier nations must phase out first, and historical emitters must support the global south in achieving their phase out.

The Pacific mustn’t be left behind in the renewable energy revolution. It’s unfair that our islands should bear the financial burden of recovering from a crisis we didn’t cause. We need the resources and expertise to transform our energy systems on our own terms and put the land, sea and wellbeing of Pacific Islanders first. We call for accessible climate funding to meet the Pacific Resilience Facility’s US$500 million target.

For us, this means Australia must turn its climate rhetoric into action.

Why is Australia at the centre of civil society’s demands?

As the region’s biggest producer of fossil fuels and the third largest exporter in the world, Australia plays a significant role in the climate crisis that threatens our survival. To come to the lands of our ancestors and claim climate leadership while signing our death warrants with every gas project you approve is immoral and unacceptable.

But we also hold Australia to high standards because it claims to be our family. In the Pacific, kinship puts the welfare of the many before the greed of the one. There’s no world in which Australia can be a true partner to the Pacific while continuing to exploit fossil fuels. With every tonne of coal exported, Australia is exporting climate disaster to our islands.

Australia must commit to phasing out fossil fuels, domestically and in its exports. It must ensure the Pacific is not left behind in the transition to renewable energy and commit to the funding it’s historically owed to the victims of the climate crisis. The Ki Mua Report commissioned by the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative found that eight Pacific countries could transform their energy systems for less than a seventh of the amount Australia gives to the fossil fuel industry.

With its potential COP31 presidency on the horizon, Australia has the chance to become the climate leader it claims to be.

Did the outcomes of the PIF meeting meet your expectations?

We had high expectations, particularly on climate action, given the recent report by the World Meteorological Organisation on the accelerated sea level rise our region faces. The Pacific is particularly vulnerable, so we need to be exceptionally ambitious. Despite our negligible contribution to this climate crisis, we have set ourselves ambitious climate targets. We have been innovative in our adaptation strategies and ambitious in our climate finance goals.

And while the PIF’s final communiqué is an encouraging step towards securing the resources we need to tackle the climate crisis, there’s a disappointing lack of pressure on the region’s major fossil fuel producers to commit to a phase out.

The PIF’s focus on peace and stability was important given the current sovereignty struggles and the shadow of a geopolitical tug-of-war hanging over our islands. But the climate crisis remains the most pressing security threat we face. With each new cyclone comes increased instability, and with each displaced community comes a host of security issues.

The time for deliberation is long past and the time for action is upon us. The PIF may be over, but the journey to COP29 is just beginning. We Pacific climate warriors will continue to celebrate our culture and ancestors as we advocate for decisive climate action that will help us achieve a safe and sustainable future for the Pacific. We hope those with the power to effect change will choose to join us.

Get in touch with 350.org through its website or Facebook and Instagram pages, and follow @350 on Twitter.

  Source

Georgia’s Dangerous Anti-LGBTQI+ Law

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Europe, Featured, Gender Identity, Gender Violence, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, LGBTQ, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: Vano Shlamov/AFP via Getty Images

LONDON, Sep 30 2024 (IPS) – Georgia’s ruling party has put LGBTQI+ people firmly in the firing line ahead of next month’s election. On 17 September, parliament gave final approval to a highly discriminatory law that empowers the authorities to censor books and films with LGBTQI+ content, stop discussion of LGBTQI+ issues in schools, ban people from flying rainbow flags and prevent Pride events. The law excludes LGBTQI+ people from adopting children, bans gender affirmation surgery and refuses to recognise same-sex marriages of Georgians conducted abroad.

Latest troubling development

Georgia’s anti-LGBTQI+ law breaches a wide range of international human rights commitments. And it’s a repeat offence: in May, a bill became law designating civil society and media groups that receive at least 20 per cent of funding from international sources as ‘pursuing the interests of a foreign power’. The ‘foreign agents’ law will enable vilification, fuel public suspicion and tie organisations up in lengthy compliance procedures.

President Salome Zourabichvili, who is independent of the ruling Georgian Dream party, vetoed the foreign agents bill, calling it a ‘Russian law’, also the view of the mass protest movement that rose up to oppose it. But presidential powers are weak, and parliament quickly reversed the veto. Zourabichvili – Georgia’s last directly elected president, with future presidents to be picked by parliament after her term ends in October – has also pledged to veto the anti-LGBTQI+ law. But a similar parliamentary override seems certain.

Georgia Dream says its anti-LGBTQI+ law, known as the law on ‘family values and the protection of minors’, is needed to defend ‘traditional moral standards’. It also said its foreign agents law was needed to stop international funders sponsoring ‘LGBT propaganda’ and fomenting revolution.

Both laws are part of a growing climate of state hostility towards civil society, in a country that once stood out as an ex-Soviet state that broadly respected civic freedoms. Last year, the European Union (EU)-Georgia Civil Society Platform – a body established as part of negotiations towards the country potentially joining the EU – criticised a sustained government smear campaign against civil society. Freedom House pointed to growing harassment and violence against journalists.

The anti-LGBTQI+ law reflects a reassertion of influence by the Georgian Orthodox Church, the country’s dominant religion, and a closer alignment with Russia. The foreign agents law imitates one introduced in Russia in 2012, which paved the way for intense repression of civil society, while Georgia’s anti-LGBTQI+ law is also strikingly similar to that passed in Russia in 2013, which has been extensively used to criminalise and silence LGBTQI+ people.

The two laws can only move the country further away from the stated goal of joining the EU. They place Georgia at a fork in the road: the government and the church clearly see it as a socially conservative country that legitimately belongs in Russia’s orbit. But others – the many people, overwhelmingly young, who’ve protested and faced state violence in return – represent a different Georgian identity: one that’s democratic, inclusive and European.

Vilification and violence

Hostility has made it harder for Georgia’s LGBTQI+ people to claim visibility. Last year, violent far-right attacks forced the cancellation of the Tbilisi Pride parade. The authorities have consistently failed to ensure the safety of participants. When people first marched on 17 May 2013, they were attacked by a mob that included members of the clergy. In 2021, extremist groups also attacked journalists covering the event, as the police stood by and did nothing.

In 2014, the year after Pride first mobilised, the Church declared 17 May – the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia – to be Family Purity Day, an event marked with a public holiday. This year, Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze joined thousands at the Family Purity Day march in Tbilisi. In contrast, such was the level of hostility that Tbilisi Pride organisers decided to only hold virtual events. LGBTQI+ people were denied the chance to do the very thing Pride events exist for: assert visibility and normalise their public presence.

The new law reverses some recent progress civil society achieved in shifting homophobic social values, with young people particularly showing more tolerant attitudes. But now the law will have the effect similar legislation has had elsewhere: giving the green light to stigmatisation, vilification and violence. Activists have pointed to the recent murder of one of the country’s few high-profile transgender people, model Kesaria Abramidze, as a grim sign of what may come. Extremist groups can only be emboldened, confident the law is on their side when they commit acts of hatred.

The upcoming election

Georgian Dream seeks a fourth consecutive term when the country goes to the polls in October. With the opposition divided, it seems certain to come first again. But its support fell in the last election and opinion polls suggest it’s lost more votes since. Possibly worried about keeping its majority, it’s opted to vilify an already excluded group of people.

Georgian Dream may think hostility towards LGBTQI+ people and civil society groups is safer electoral territory than a more explicitly anti-western, pro-Russian stance. But its recent decisions signal how it will rule if its electoral strategy pays off: not by upholding the rights of all Georgians but by putting the interests of its socially conservative supporters first, and by tailoring policies to please Vladimir Putin.

Georgian Dream still pays lip service to the idea of joining the EU, but the party’s billionaire financier and behind-the-scenes leader Bidzina Ivanishvili recently made his position clear, accusing western countries of being part of a global conspiracy to drag Georgia into a repeat of its ill-fated 2008 war with Russia. Georgian-Russian relations have warmed since Russia launched its all-out war on Ukraine in 2022.

The EU, for its part, reacted to the foreign agents law by suspending financial aid and Georgia’s accession negotiations. It must take a firm line and make clear Georgia won’t be allowed to join until the human rights of all its people are recognised and civil society is respected.

Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

A longer version of this article is available here.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org.

  Source

‘We Need Competitive Elections so Only Truly Committed States Are Elected to the UN Human Rights Council’

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Conferences, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, TerraViva United Nations

Sep 26 2024 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS discusses the upcoming election of new members of the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council with Madeleine Sinclair, New York Office Director and Legal Counsel at the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR).

The Human Rights Council plays a crucial role in addressing global human rights issues and serves as a platform for activists and victims of violations. Its 47 members represent different regional groups. In October, 19 states will stand for 18 seats, with the Asia-Pacific region the only group with more candidates than seats. Many of the candidates have poor human rights records, and one – Saudi Arabia – stands out for its extremely serious rights violations. Civil society calls on UN member states to reject Saudi Arabia’s candidacy and uphold human rights standards when selecting members of the UN’s top human rights body.

Madeleine Sinclair

Why is the election of UN Human Rights Council members important?

As happens every year, the Human Rights Council will soon renew one third of its membership through a secret ballot election. On 9 October, all 193 members of the UN General Assembly will vote for the 18 members who will sit on the UN’s main human rights body from 2025 to 2027.

Elections should provide an opportunity to elect candidates with a strong human rights record. According to the Council’s membership criteria, candidate states should demonstrate a genuine commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights through domestic and international action. They should also demonstrate a willingness to address emerging challenges and crises to ensure the Council’s effectiveness.

How competitive will this year’s election be?

Unfortunately, this election will be nowhere near as competitive as it should be, with only 19 countries standing for 18 seats. These seats are divided among the UN’s five official regional groups, each of which presents its own slate of candidates. But only the Asia-Pacific slate is competitive, with six candidates vying for five seats, while the other four slates are closed, meaning they have as many candidates as seats available. Africa has five candidates for five seats, Latin America and the Caribbean has three for three, Eastern Europe has two for two and Western Europe and Others has two for two.

This election is less competitive than last year’s, when 17 candidates contested 15 seats. Only Latin America and the Caribbean and Eastern Europe had more candidates than seats, resulting in the defeat of Russia. In 2021, all 18 candidates running for 18 seats were elected, receiving between 144 and 189 votes out of a possible 193, despite some having extremely problematic human rights records.

Unfortunately, non-competitive elections are common, with fully closed slates being presented four times since 2008. Other elections have seen only one or two competitive slates. The problem with non-competitive races is they deprive voting states of the opportunity to rigorously evaluate and select candidates based on their records and commitments, potentially compromising the quality of the Council.

But even in closed slates, it’s still possible for unopposed candidates to fail if they don’t receive at least 97 out of 193 votes. In 2023, for example, Burundi and China received the lowest number of votes in their regional groups, sending a message that their candidacies were not fully supported. ISHR encourages voting states to evaluate all candidates carefully and withhold votes from problematic ones, even in closed slates.

Who are the candidates in the October election?

Candidates in this year’s election include Benin, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, The Gambia and Kenya from the African group. In the Asia and Pacific group, Cyprus, South Korea, the Marshall Islands, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Thailand are running. Latin America and the Caribbean is represented by Bolivia, Colombia and Mexico. Iceland, Spain and Switzerland are the candidates from Western Europe and Others, while the Czech Republic and North Macedonia are running for Central and Eastern Europe.

This year, one candidate has a particularly poor human rights record: Saudi Arabia. It has closed civic space and has been repeatedly included in the UN Secretary-General’s reprisals report and accused by UN experts of committing war crimes in Yemen. Due to these serious concerns, we are actively campaigning against its election in the Asia and Pacific group.

What’s the role of civil society in this process?

Civil society, including ISHR, has a crucial role to play in advocating for a more effective and accountable Human Rights Council. One of the key areas where reform is needed is closed slates. Competitive elections are essential to ensure that only states with a genuine commitment to human rights are elected.

ISHR has created scorecards to assess and compare the candidates based on their history of cooperation with human rights mechanisms such as the Universal Periodic Review and their engagement with civil society, UN treaty bodies and special procedures. These criteria provide a solid understanding and clear overview of a country’s human rights record and therefore its suitability to sit on the Council. While we understand no country has a perfect record, these criteria aim to provide valuable insights into each state’s commitment to upholding human rights and its potential role on the Council.

In addition to our scorecards, our annual joint pledging event with Amnesty International provides a platform for states to present their candidacies, make strong, public commitments as potential members and receive direct feedback and critical questions from civil society. If all candidates participated in this event, it would increase the political cost of refusing to participate or failing to submit formal pledges and commitments. Such engagement would make it harder for states with poor human rights records to seek a seat without facing scrutiny.

What should be the Council’s priorities?

The Human Rights Council is vital in amplifying the voices of rights holders, victims and human rights defenders, providing them with a platform to expose violations and demand accountability. To fulfil this role effectively, its priorities must focus on being credible, effective and accessible. It should continue to focus on upholding international law universally, supporting the remote and hybrid participation of civil society and ensuring that demands for accountability are promptly addressed.

A credible and effective Council can only function if its members fully cooperate with its mechanisms and adhere to objective human rights criteria. At a time of increasing conflict and crisis, often rooted in repression and human rights violations, the Council’s role in promoting accountability and justice is more important than ever. States should support the work of human rights defenders, whose efforts to prevent violations, document abuses and provide essential services are essential to crisis resolution.

To address these conflicts, states must apply human rights standards consistently. Selective or inconsistent application of standards undermines the international framework and the credibility of those involved. International human rights law, when applied consistently and in a principled manner, remains the best guide to achieving a more just, peaceful and inclusive world.

Get in touch with ISHR through its website or Facebook page, and follow @ishrglobal on Instagram and @ISHRglobal and @Madeleine_ISHR on Twitter.

 

A UN 2.0 Needs Robust People’s Civil Society Participation

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Climate Change, Conferences, Democracy, Economy & Trade, Environment, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: United Nations

NEW YORK, Sep 13 2024 (IPS) – A cascade of crises endangers our world. Wars conducted without rules, governance devoid of democratic principles, surge in discrimination against women and excluded groups, accelerating climate change, greed-induced environmental degradation and unconscionable economic deprivation in an age of excess are threatening to roll back decades of human progress made by the international community.

This September’s UN Summit of the Future presents a rare opportunity to address these challenges through greater participation in UN decision making. World leaders are convening later this month in New York to agree a Pact for the Future, expected to lay the blueprint for international cooperation in the 21st century.

But civil society’s efforts to ensure an outcome document fit for today’s needs are coming up against diplomatic posturing between powerful states intent on preserving the status quo.

State-centric decisions

The world has changed dramatically since the UN was established in 1945, when a large swathe of humanity was still under colonial yoke. Since then, significant strides have been made to advance democratic governance around the world. Yet decision-making processes at the UN remain stubbornly state-centric, privileging a handful of powerful states that control decisions and key appointments.

Civil society has presented the Pact of the Future’s co-facilitators, the governments of Germany and Namibia, with several innovative proposals to enable meaningful participation and people-centred decision-making at the UN. Proposals include a parliamentary assembly representative of the world’s peoples, a world citizen’s initiative to enable people to bring issues of transnational importance to the UN and the appointment of a civil society or people’s envoy to drive the UN’s outreach to communities around the world. However, these forward-looking proposals have found no traction in various drafts of the Pact, which is being criticised for lacking ambition and specificity.

It’s no surprise that diplomatic negotiations on the Pact between country representatives are being bogged down by arguments over language. As a result of diplomatic wrangling, the draft’s provisions are mostly generic and repetitive.

This is unfortunate, as civil society representatives have spent considerable time and energy over the course of the past year in engaging with Summit of the Future processes. Despite tight deadlines, civil society organisations came together at short notice to submit comprehensive recommendations on the Pact’s successive drafts. Hundreds of civil society delegates participated at considerable expense in the much-anticipated Civil Society Conference in Nairobi, designed to gather inputs to feed into the Summit outcomes.

Overall, the gains made so far have been few. These include broad commitments to reform the UN Security Council and international financial institutions. A significantly positive aspect of the Pact’s draft is a commitment to strengthen the UN’s human rights pillar; many of us in civil society rely on this to raise concerns about egregious violations. However, deep-seated tensions among member states in New York have led to the regrettable removal of references to human rights defenders, who play a crucial role in protecting and promoting human rights. This is evident in the recent Revision 3 draft of the Pact released on 27 August.

Strengthening human rights

Tellingly, the human rights pillar receives roughly five per cent of the UN’s regular budget, forcing any new initiatives to rely on underfunded voluntary contributions. This needs to change. The human rights pillar needs to be strengthened. Doing so would help make each of the three UN’s pillars – the others being peace and security and sustainable development – more strongly connected and mutually reinforcing.

To strengthen the human rights pillar, we outline five priority areas for action.

First, substantial resources should be allocated to the UN’s independent thematic and country-focused human rights experts, who enhance civil society’s impact but are forced to get by on shoestring budgets. Due to limited funding from the UN, the experts are compelled to rely on voluntary contributions to support their vital activities.

Second, an accessible and transparently managed pooled fund should be created to enable better participation by civil society in UN meetings. Many smaller civil society organisations, particularly from the global south, find it extremely challenging to cover the costs of participation in key UN arenas.

Third, accountability measures should be strengthened to ensure follow-up in cases of reprisals against people for engaging with UN human rights mechanisms. The UN’s latest reprisals report shows that reprisals have taken place against over 150 individuals in more than 30 states. This needs to be addressed immediately.

Fourth, the UN’s investigative capacities in relation to war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide should be strengthened to ensure justice for victims. The need for this has been made tragically clear by the resurgence of authoritarian rule and military dictatorships around the world, coupled with egregious rights violations in conflicts in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Myanmar, Sudan, Ukraine, Yemen and others.

Finally, the human rights pillar can be supported by ensuring implementation of the UN’s guidance note on civic space. This urges the protection of civil society personnel and human rights defenders from intimidation and reprisals, the facilitation of meaningful and safe participation in governance processes and the promotion of laws and policies to support these goals.

The role human rights defenders and civil society activists play in ensuring peaceful resolution of conflicts, addressing gender-based violence and promoting economic justice – among many other vital issues – is crucial. In calling to strengthen the human rights pillar, the Pact’s pen holders recognise the importance of human rights approaches. They must extend this recognition to include people’s and civil society participation. Failing to do so will result in a missed opportunity to create a transformative UN 2.0 that places people and rights at the centre.

Jesselina Rana is UN advisor at CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance. Mandeep Tiwana is chief of evidence and engagement at CIVICUS plus representative to the UN in New York.